Raby HP? Options

[IN RANGE inc.]

Been working on the car and sorting out issues. New shifter parts, brake parts showed up from Pelican today. I haven't even driven the car yet with the stock 2.0 and I'm already thinking about how fun the car would be with more HP. I'm not into slow cars. LOL !!! As I said I have made good HP with a type one motor and the type four is new to me. What is the word on HP. I've seen reference to Raby's 2.9 and I have the Hot VWs performance mag with his 2270 build up in it. Give me the low down on Raby HP.

Thanks guys

[falcor75]

Since when does a 2056 qualify as a big four? That's barely 5% bigger than a stock 2.0, 2276 should be the smallest engine qualifying for the "big four" title....

[stugray]

Since when does a 2056 qualify as a big four? That's barely 5% bigger than a stock 2.0, 2276 should be the smallest engine qualifying for the "big four" title....

Oh, I'm sorry I didnt catch that the title of this thread had changed to "Big four only discussion". (IMG:style_emoticons/default/confused24.gif)

I was merely setting what we could call a "standard" that should be very hard to achieve with this 50 year old engine technology (even for Jake).
The FA20 is a modern Naturally Aspirated 4 cylinder 2.0L boxer engine.

SO you would be very hard pressed to get 2.4 * 100 = 240 hp froma 2.4 Liter engine or 300 hp from a 3L.
Possible- Yes. Extreme - Yes!

[mr2by4]

Since when does a 2056 qualify as a big four? That's barely 5% bigger than a stock 2.0, 2276 should be the smallest engine qualifying for the "big four" title....

Oh, I'm sorry I didnt catch that the title of this thread had changed to "Big four only discussion". (IMG:style_emoticons/default/confused24.gif)

I was merely setting what we could call a "standard" that should be very hard to achieve with this 50 year old engine technology (even for Jake).
The FA20 is a modern Naturally Aspirated 4 cylinder 2.0L boxer engine.

SO you would be very hard pressed to get 2.4 * 100 = 240 hp froma 2.4 Liter engine or 300 hp from a 3L.
Possible- Yes. Extreme - Yes!

The FRS , while modern, is hardly pushing the envelope. It is tuned as an economy engine and with sufficient safe guards that they can expect a moderately maintained engine to hit 100k miles. I don't think that we really expect our "built" performance motors to hit the same numbers on reliability with the same lack of attention.

[stugray]

The FRS , while modern, is hardly pushing the envelope.

So if you do not consider a NA 2.0L with 200 hp to not be "pushing the envelope", what other NA engines can get the same or better hp/liter numbers?

The record was the S2000 at 123.5 hp/liter and now the Ferrari 458 Italia with 123.8.

I don't think that we really expect our "built" performance motors to hit the same numbers on reliability with the same lack of attention.

I am arguing that with the type IV, we cannot even hit those performance numbers at ANY level of reliability.

I used the FA20 because it is an apples to apples comparison as far as the core technology goes.
AND it is a perfect fit for the 914 as one of the key reasons for the boxer in the BRZ/FRS was low CG.

[mr2by4]

So if you do not consider a NA 2.0L with 200 hp to not be "pushing the envelope", what other NA engines can get the same or better hp/liter numbers?

"Ariel announced in February 2008 its latest Atom variant, the Ariel Atom 500. It features a 500 horsepower 3.0 litre John Hartley designed V8 engine..."
I would say that 166 hp per liter is a good start. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)
Actually 125 hp per liter is a great benchmark for where current tech can get an NA motor with decent reliability.
100 hp per liter is old sauce. We have been doing that for decades.

[stugray]

"Ariel announced in February 2008 its latest Atom variant, the Ariel Atom 500. It features a 500 horsepower 3.0 litre John Hartley designed V8 engine..."
I would say that 166 hp per liter is a good start. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

So you are comparing a "production run" of less than 30 cars, that cost almost a 1/4-million dollars each, using a hybrid dual motorcycle engine, that revs to 10k - to a full production street car that costs $25K?

OK - I'll call your Ariel and Raise you a Fomula 1 600 horsepower 1.6-liter V6 for 375 hp/liter.

You are missing the point. I will rephrase:
I am suggesting the FA20 as the engine that the type-IV could just barely hope to reach in terms of performance without spending over $20k.
They are BOTH 2.0L 4-cylinder NA boxer engines.

How is bringing supercars into the discussion helping?
And we (porsche hobbiests) have not "been doing that for decades".

Even Jake admits to having trouble breaking the 100hp/liter marks wtih these engines.

[mr2by4]

How is bringing supercars into the discussion helping?
And we (porsche hobbiests) have not "been doing that for decades".

Even Jake admits to having trouble breaking the 100hp/liter marks wtih these engines.

But that is not what you said. You suggested that 100hp per liter was a limit. I don't think it is a standard at all in an air-cooled engine. I think Porsche punched that number in the face back in 1973 with the 2.8 RSR road cars.
You suggested a hypothetical limit of current technology. So I would suggest that the hypothetical limit should include examples which exist.
BMW was making road cars touching the 200 hp per liter number back in the 80s.
Honda has exceeded that number by a significant margin, as has Ferrari. The 2.8 liter v8 that makes 500 hp is a bit of a special case, but you just picked an arbitrary car and made up an arbitrary number. I was questioning what how that was meaningful.
I am not really sure why we are going on about this since it has almost nothing to do with the cost of getting a 200hp motor in your 914.
If you want 100 hp per liter you could just get a 1973 flat six out of an RSR. I am pretty sure that Raby could build you a clone of one (or something better) if you have the $$$.